STATEMENT 


OF 


JOHN  AND   FEANCISCO   FOESTEE. 


STATE  OFFICE:  . . 


SACRAMENTO: 

S  J.  A^ 

1886. 


STATEMENT 


JOHIsT  A1ND   FEASTCISCO   FOESTEE. 


SACRAMENTO: 


STATE    OFFICE, 


JAMES   J.   AYERS,    SUPT.    STATE    PRINTING. 

1886. 


STATEMENT 


Reference  to  the  Applications  and  Contracts  of  John  and  Francisco  Forster, 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  LAND  DEPARTMENT,  } 
BERKELEY,  September  28,  1886.      j 

Hon.  A.  L.  RHODES,  of  Land  Committee,  San  Francisco,  California : 

SIR  :  In  compliance  with  your  request,  I  herewith  respectfully  submit 
the  following  statement  in  reference  to  the  applications  and  contracts  of 
John  and  Francisco  Forster,  made  under  the  grant  of  150,000  acres. 

The  following  is  a  copy  of  the  application  and  contract  of  John  Forster. 
The  conditions  of  Francisco  Forster's  contract  is  the  same  : 

GRANT  OF  ONE  HUNDRED  AND  FIFTY  THOUSAND  ACRES  FOR  AGRICULTURAL  COLLEGE  PURPOSES. 

Application  for  Location  under  the  State. 
Location  No.  411. 

Los  ANGELES  LAND  DISTRICT,  Los  ANGELES,  CAL.,  February  17, 1872. 

To  ANDREW  J.  MOULDER,  Land  Agent  of  the  University  : 

I,  John  Forster,  of  Los  Angeles  County,  State  of  California,  do  hereby  apply,  under  the 
provisions  of  an  Act  to  create  and  organize  the  University  of  California,  approved  March 
23, 1868,  and  of  an  Act  entitled  "An  Act  to  provide  for  the  management  and  sale  of  the 
lands  belonging  to  the  State,"  approved  March  28,  1868,  and  of  an  Act  amendatory  thereto, 

gassed  April  4,  1870,  to  purchase  and  locate  the  following  described  land  in  Los  Angeles 
ounty,  containing  2,268.78  acres,  according  to  the  returns  of  the  U.  S.  Surveyor-General, 
and  which  I  agree  to  accept  in  lieu  of  the  full  amount  of  2,280  acres,  for  which  I  agree  to 
pay  to  the  University  of  California  five  dollars  per  acre,  in  gold  coin  of  the  United  States, 
in  the  following  manner,  viz.:  Twenty  per  cent  of  the  purchase  money,  together  with 
yearly  interest  on  the  balance  at  the  rate  of  ten  per  cent  per  annum,  in  advance,  from  the 
date  of  approval  of  the  location  by  the  Land  Agent  of  the  University;  and  at  any  time 
after  the  expiration  of  five  years  from  date,  and  after  one  vear's  notice,  I  agree  to  make 
payment  in  full,  when  demanded  by  said  Agent;  and  if  all  the  conditions  of  this  agree- 
ment are  not  complied  with,  then  the  lands  shall  revert  to  the  University  without  suit, 
and  any  approval  hereof  shall  be  and  become  nail  and  void. 

JOHN  FORSTER. 

February  17,  1872,  John  Forster  made  application  for  the  selection  of 
2,268.78  acres  which  he  agreed  to  accept  for  2,280  acres  in  Tp.  9  S.,  R.  7  W., 
San  Bernardino  Meridian. 

February  17,  1872,  Francisco  Forster  made  application  for  the  selection 
of  431.60  acres,  which  he  agreed  to  accept  for  440  acres  in  Tp.  9  S.,  R.  7 
'W.,  S.  B.  M. 

The  above  applications  were  approved  May  1,  1872,  by  H.  A.  Higley, 
Land  Agent  of  the  University. 

The  above  selections  were  listed  in  Clear  List  No.  2,  minimum,  Los  Ang- 
eles District.  Approved  June  17,  1873. 


John  Forster's  application  was  listed  for... 2,188.78  acres. 

Francisco  Forster's  application  was  listed  for 431.60  acres. 

Total -. 2,620.38  acres. 

December  2,  1872,  John  Forster  paid  on  principal $2,280  00 

December  2,  1872,  John  Forster  paid  interest  to  January  1,  1873 608  00 

And  interest  from  January  1,  1873,  to  January  1, 1878 — five  years 4,560  00 

$7,448  00 

December  2,  1872,  Francisco  Forster  paid  on  principal ...$440  00 

December  2,  1872,  Francisco  Forster  paid  interest  to  January  1, 1873 117  50 

And  interest  from  January  1,  1873,  to  May  1,  1878 938  50 

1,496  00 


Total  amount  paid  by  John  and  Francisco  Forster  of  principal  and  interest.  .$8,944  00 

Letter  press  copies  show  that: 

On  September  23,  1878,  demand  was  made  for  the  interest  due  for  1878,  of $1,088  00 

On  August  21, 1879,  demand  was  made  for  balance  of  principal  of 9,120  00 

On  August  21,  1879,  demand  was  made  for  interest  from  January,  1878,  to  Sep- 
tember, 1879,  of... ." 1,520  00 

Suit  was  commenced  against  John  Forster  October  25,  1879,  for  two 
years'  interest,  viz:  $1,824. 

September  14,  1882,  by  request  of  0.  Livermore,  acting  as  agent  for  the 
Forster's,  statement  was  forwarded  to  said  Livermore,  showing  balance  due 
by  John  Forster,  of  $13,705,  to  January  1,  1883;  Francisco  Forster,  $2,591, 
to  January  1,  1883. 

On  the  above  statement,  said  Livermore  made  the  following  indorsement: 

The  above  communication  and  account  was  received  by  me  on  or  about  the  date  it 
bears,  and  was  by  me  inclosed  to  the  heirs  of  the  estate  of  John  Forster,  deceased. 

[Signed:]  O.  LIVERMORE. 

The  following  telegram  was  received  from  0.  Livermore: 

Los  ANGELES,  March  21,  1883. 
J.  HAM.  HARRIS: 

Mr.  Forster  will  be  in  San  Francisco  with  me  next  Monday,  with  view  to  settlement  of 
your  claim.  All  right. 

[Signed:]  O.  LIVERMORE. 

A  few  days  subsequent  to  the  receipt  of  the  above  telegram,  a  confer- 
ence was  held  with  Marco  and  Francisco  Forster,  their  attorney  Leach, 
and  O.  Livermore,  by  John  B.  Mhoon,  counsel  for  the  Regents  of  the  Uni- 
versity, and  the  Land  Agent  of  the  University. 

Messrs.  Leach  and  Forsters  stated  that  the  contracts  made  with  the 
University  of  California,  by  John  and  Francisco  Forster,  for  the  selection 
of  lands  in  township  nine  south,  range  seven  west,  San  Bernardino  meri- 
dian, were  void  and  not  binding  upon  the  estate  of  John  and  Francisco 
Forster,  deceased,  and  declined  to  carry  out  the  conditions  of  the  contracts; 
also,  that  the  land  in  question  was  not  worth  more  than  fifty  cents  per  acre. 

At  a  meeting  of  the  Board  of  Regents  April  23,  1883: 

The  Land  Committee  reported  a  proposition  from  the  heirs  of  the  estate  of  John  Fors- 
ter to  pay  the  University  $8,000;  provided,  that  said  amount  shall  be  accepted  in  full  satis- 
faction of  all  demands  of  the  University  against  the  estate  of  John  Forster,  deceased,  on 
location  No.  411. 

On  motion,  the  proposition  was  postponed  to  the  next  meeting,  with 
instructions  to  the  committee  to  report  the  exact  facts,  with  a  statement  of 
amounts  paid  and  amounts  due. 


At  the  meeting  of  the  Board  May  28, 1883,  the  following  was  reported  by 
the  Chairman  of  the  Land  Committee: 

In  compliance  with  the  resolution  of  the  Board,  of  date  April  23, 1883,  requesting  this 
committee  to  report  the  exact  facts,  with  a  statement  of  amounts  paid  and  amounts  due 
by  John  Forster,  deceased,  on  his  location,  No.  411,  the  Land  Agent  was  instructed  to 
prepare  said  statement. 

The  statement  of  the  Land  Agent  was  then  read  and  ordered  on  file. 

STATEMENT   OF   LAND   AGENT. 

BERKELEY,  May  28,  1883. 

Hon.  Jos.  W.  WINANS,  Chairman  of  Committee  on  Agricultural  Lands: 

SIR:  In  compliance  with  the  instructions  of  your  committee,  I  herewith 
submit  a  statement  of  "the  facts  and  amounts  paid  and  due"  by  John 
Forster,  deceased,  on  his  Location  Number  411,  made  under  the  Agricult- 
ural Grant  of  150,000  acres. 

John  Forster  made  application  and  executed  contract  with  the  Land 
Agent  of  the  University  on  the  seventeenth  of  February,  1872,  to  purchase 
the  following  described  lands  in  Los  Angeles  County,  at  five  dollars  per 
acre:  The  NE  i  and  fractional  S  ^  of  Section  4,  all  of  Section  3,  and  frac- 
tional W  \  of  Section  2,  and  SE  i  of  NE  i,  and  fractional  S  ^  of  Section  9, 
all  of  Section  10,  and  fractional  \V  ^  of  Section  11,  and  lots  1  and  2  of 
Section  14,  all  in  township  9  south,  of  range  7  west,  San  Bernardino 
meridian,  containing  2,268^^  acres,  accepted  in  lieu  of  the  full  amount  of 
2,280  acres.  Said  selection  was  accepted  by  the  Register  of  the  Los 
Angeles  District.  April  16,  1872. 

On  December  2,  1872,  said  Forster  made  the  following  payments: 

Twenty-five  per  cent  of  principal  (or  $1  per  acre) $2,280  00 

Interest  from  May  1,  1872,  to  January  1,  1873.. 608  00 

Fees..  WOO 


$2,952  00 
Making  a  total  of  twenty -nine  hundred  and  fifty-two  dollars. 

Whereupon  Certificate  of  Purchase  No.  94  was  issued  to  said  Forster, 
leaving  a  balance  of  principal  due  of  $9,120,  bearing  interest  at  the  rate  of 
ten  per  cent  per  annum.  Subsequently  to  December  2,  1872,  said  Forster 
paid  the  annual  interest  from  January  1, 1873,  to  January  1, 1878.  namely: 
$4,560,  which,  added  to  his  payments  of  December  2,  1872,  gives  a  total 
amount  paid  by  said  Forster  of  $7,512. 

His  estate  yet  owes  the  following  amounts,  viz.: 

Balance  of  principal  due  on  2,280  acres,  at  $4  per  acre  - $9,120  00 

Interest  from  January  1,  1878,  to  June  1, 1883,  being  five  years  and  five  months, 
at  ten  per  cent  per  annum .". 4,940  00 

$14,060  00 
Making  a  total  of  fourteen  thousand  and  sixty  dollars  to  June  1,  1883. 

On  October  25,  1879,  the  attorney  for  the  Board  commenced  suit  in  the 

District  Court  in  San  Francisco  for  interest  due,  amounting  to  $1,824. 

Said  suit  is  still  pending. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

J.  HAM.  HARRIS,  Land  Agent. 


Regent  Wallace  then  called  up  the  application  of  the  heirs  of  John  For- 
ster, as  reported  on  page  49  of  these  minutes,  and  moved  that  the  applica- 
tion be  denied.  Carried. 

Meeting  of  Board  of  Regents  September  4, 1883.  The  Secretary  presented 
a  petition  of  M.  A.  Forster,  requesting  the  Board  of  Regents  to  unite  with 
him  in  a  request  to  the  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office  for  a 
resurvey  of  T.  9  S.,  R.  7  W.,  S.  B.  M.,  together  with  a  map  and  other 
papers.  Referred  to  Land  Committee. 

Meeting  of  the  Board  of  Regents,  October  15,  1883.  Regent  Winans 
then  submitted  the  report  of  the  Land  Committee,  as  follows : 

In  the  matter  of  the  petition  of  M.  A.  Forster,  by  his  attorney  Theo.  Wagner,  asking 
that  the  Board  of  Regents  "  join  with  him  in  an  application  to  the  Commissioner  of  the 
General  Land  Office  for  a  resurvey  of  township  9  south,  range  7  west,  San  Bernardino  me- 
ridian, in  order  that  a  resurvey  may  be  obtained  which  will  show  the  true  area  of  said 
township,  enable  your  petitioner  to  correctly  locate  lands  owned  by  him  therein,  and 
secure  to  your  University  proper  credit  for  lands  which,  by  having  "no  existence  in  fact, 
are  improperly  located  and  charged  thereto." 

It  is  claimed  by  said  Forster  that  the  survey  made  by  Deputy  U.  S.  Surveyor,  Max  Stro- 
bel,  in  the  year  1869,  was  fraudulent,  and  that  there  is  a  large  area  returned  as  public  land 
by  said  Strob'el,  which  lies  in  the  Pacific  Ocean,  comprising  some  1,500  acres.  After  due 
examination  of  the  affidavits  submitted  to  us  in  support  of  said  claim,  made  by  Richard 
Eagan,  with  maps  attached,  also  from  the  office  of  the  U.  S.  Surveyor-General,  we  recom- 
mend that  the  Land  Agent  of  the  University  of  California  be  authorized  and  empowered 
to  make  application,  to  the  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  for  a  resurvey  of 
township  9  south  of  range  7  west,  S,  B.  M.,  in  consequence  of  the  apparent  errors  in  the 
survey  made  by  Deputy  U.  S.  Surveyor,  Max  Strobel. 

On  motion,  the  recommendation  of  the  committee  was  concurred  in. 
MEM. — The  Land  Committee,  in  committee,  refused  to  join  with  M.  A. 
Forster  in  application  for  a  resurvey. 

In  compliance  with  instructions  of  the  Board,  the  Land  Agent,  under 
date  of  October  25,  1883,  requested  the  Commissioner  to  order  a  resurvey,. 
and  the  following  letter  was  received : 

[COPY.] 

DEPARTMENT  OF  THE  INTERIOR,  GENERAL  LAND  OFFICE,  ) 
WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  November  8, 1883.     j 

J.  HAM.  HARRIS,  ESQ.,  Land  Agent  of  the  California  University,  San  Francisco,  California: 

SIR  :  I  have  received  your  letter  dated  October  25, 1883,  submitting  certain  papers  therein 
named  in  reference  to  alleged  errors  or  frauds  in  the  survey  of  Tp.  9  S.,  R.  7  W.,  S.  B.  meri- 
dian, California,  and  requesting  in  behalf  of  the  Board  of  Regents  of  said  University,  that 
a  resurvey  of  said  township  be  authorized.  In  reply,  I  have  to  state,  that  there  are  no 
funds  at  the  disposal  of  this  office  to  pay  for  any  resurveys. 

Very  respectfully, 
[Signed:]  N.  C.  McFARLAND,  Commissioner. 

Meeting  of  Board  of  Regents  May  1,  1884.  Regent  Winans  submitted 
the  following  resolution,  and  moved  its  adoption: 

WHEREAS,  It  is  manifestly  to  the  advantage  of  the  University  of  California,  to  reconvey 
such  interest  as  the  State  of  California  may  have  acquired  in  the  lands  situated  in  T.  9  S., 
R.  7  W.,  S.  B.  M.,  as  are  not  included  in  the  F.  Von  Leicht  survey,  heretofore  selected  and 
listed  to  the  State  of  California  under  the  Agricultural  College  grant  by  the  United  States; 
now,  therefore,  be  it 

Resolved,  That  the  Governor  of  the  State  of  California  is  hereby  requested  to  execute  and 
deliver  to  the  United  States  a  proper  conveyance,  pursuant  to  the  Act  of  the  Legislature 
approved  March  13,  1883,  for  said  lands,  as  the  same  are  described  in  a  deed  this  day  pre- 
sented by  the  counsel  of  this  Board  to  the  Board  of  Regents,  a  copy  whereof  is  to  be  duly 
filed  in  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Board. 

Deferred  until  the  next  quarterly  meeting. 


Meeting  of  Board  of  Regents,  May  23,  1884.  Regent  Hallidie  offered 
the  following  resolution,  which  was  adopted: 

Resolved,  That  in  the  matter  of  the  form  of  deed  to  be  executed  by  the  Governor  of 
this  State,  reconveying  certain  lands  in  Tp.  9  south,  R.  7  west,  S.  B.  M.,  that  it  be  referred 
to  the  Land  Committee,  with  power  as  to  taking  action  in  the  premises,  what  action  to 
take,  and  when  to  take  it. 

The  Finance  Committee  reported:  "  Mr.  Wagner,  on  behalf  of  the  Fors- 
ters,  represents,  in  a  statement  herewith  submitted,  of  date  of  May  20, 

1884,  that  the  Forsters  have  received  only  1,560  acres  of  land  from  the 
University,  and  that  the  sum  due  thereon  amounts  to  $2,038  83. 

"We  recommend  that  Mr.  Wagner's  statement  be  referred  to  the  counsel 
of  the  Board." 

July  8,  1884.  A  letter  from  Theo.  Wagner,  of  date  June  12, 1884,  Attor- 
ney for  Forster  heirs,  was  presented  to  the  Board  of  Regents,  Wagner 
claiming  that  to  the  twentieth  of  May,  1884,  there  would  be  due  the  Uni- 
versity on  the  Forster  locations,  a  balance  of  $2,038  83.  Said  letter  was 
referred  to  the  Land  Committee. 

By  request  of  the  Land  Committee,  the  Land  Agent  made  the  following 
statement: 

SAN  FRANCISCO,  May  15, 1884. 

John  and  Francisco  Forster,  in  account  with  the  Regents  of  the  University  of  Califor- 
nia, Dr.: 

To  principal  on  1,  560-^  acres,  at  $5  per  acre $7,804  65 

To  interest  on  balance  of  principal  of  $6,243^,  from  May  1, 1872,  to  May  15, 

1884,at  lOpercent. 7,492  46 

$15,297  11 
Credit. 

By  payment  on  accountof  principal . $2,720  00 

By  payment  on  account  of  interest 6,224  00 

8,944  00 

Balance  due  May  15, 1884 $6,353  11 

MEM. — The  above  area  of  1,560^  acres,  was  by  statement  of  Theo.  Wagner,  accepted 
as  the  number  of  acres  that  could  be  conveyed,  but  the  letter  of  Commissioner  of  June  26, 

1885,  gave  the  area  as  1,626^^  acres. 

At  a  meeting  of  the  Board  of  Regents  August  5,  1884,  Regent  Winans 
presented  the  report  from  the  Land  Committee,  signed  by  all  its  members. 

In  reference  to  the  letter  of  Theo.  Wagner,  Esq.,  attorney  for  Marco  and 
Francisco  Forster,  referred  to  the  Land  Committee  at  the  meeting  of  the 
Board  of  July  8,  1884,  your  committee  recommend  the  adoption  of  the  fol- 
lowing resolution: 

Resolved,  That  the  proposition  on  the  part  of  the  Forster  heirs  in  this  communication 
be  rejected,  and  that  a  counter  proposition  be  made  that  they  keep  and  pay  for  the 
l,560^j  acre  portion,  and  that  the  Regents  return  to  them  the  amount  which  has  been 
paid  as  principal  on  the  1,159  acre  portion. 

The  resolution  was  adopted. 

At  a  meeting  of  the  Board  September  2,  1884,  Regent  Winans,  from 
Land  Committee,  reported  that  the  Forster  heirs,  through  their  attorney, 
refused  to  accede  to  the  proposition  of  the  Board. 

Regent  Hallidie  moved  to  refer  the  whole  matter  to  the  Land  and  Law 
Committees,  jointly,  with  power  to  act  finally  as  a  joint  committee. 

It  was  moved  to  strike  out  the  last  clause,  and  substitute  therefor  "to 
report  their  recommendation  to  the  Board."  The  amendment  was  adopted. 


8 

At  a  meeting  of  the  Board  March  3,  1885,  Regents  Rhodes,  Winans, 
and  Rodgers,  made  the  following  report: 

At  a  meeting  of  the  Joint  Committee,  held  the  thirteenth  of  December, 
1884,  to  consider  the  matter  of  the  refusal  of  the  heirs  of  John  and  Fran- 
cisco Forster,  by  their  attorney,  Theo.  Wagner,  to  accept  the  proposition 
passed  by  the  Board,  August  5,  1884,  by  the  following  resolution  recom- 
mended by  the  Land  Committee,  viz. : 


Resolved,  That  the  proposition,  on  the  part  of  the  Forster  heirs,  in  their  communication, 
be  rejected,  and  that  a  counter  proposition  to  them  be  made,  that  they  keep  and  pay  for 
the  1,560.93  acre  portion,  and  that  the  Regents  return  to  them  the  amount  which'  has 
been  paid  as  principal  on  the  1,159  acre  portion. 

After  careful  consideration,  your  committee  recommend  that  the  above 
resolution  be  adhered  to.  Adopted. 

MEM. — At  the  meeting  of  the  Joint  Committee,  were  present,  Regents 
Winans,  Rhodes,  Beard,  Swift,  and  Rodgers. 

Theo.  Wagner,  attorney  for  Forster  heirs,  rejected  the  above  proposition. 

Meeting  of  Board  of  Regents  August  14,  1885.  The  Land  Committee, 
through  Regent  Winans,  presented  the  following  report: 

Your  committee  recommend  the  adoption  of  the  following  resolutions: 

Resolved  by  the  Board  of  Regents  of  the  University  of  California,  That  the  said  Board  of 
Regents  does  hereby  consent  to  the  cancellation,  by  the  General  Land  Office,  of  the  selec- 
tion made  by  the  State,  through  the  Land  Agent  of  the  University  of  California,  under 
the  Agricultural  College  Grant,  of  lands  situated  within  Township 'No.  9  south,  of  range 
No.  7  west,  San  Bernardino  meridian,  amounting  to  2,620^%  acres — said  selection  bearing 
date  of  March  20,  1872;  and  also  consent  to  the  cancellation  of  the  corresponding  clear 
list  No.  2,  issued  by  the  General  Land  Office,  approved  June  17,  1873 ;  the  cancellation  of 
said  selection  and  list  to  be  made  upon  the  condition  that  the  University  be  permitted  to 
select,  under  the  Agricultural  College  Grant,  the  lands  described  in  said  selection  and 
list  which  are  shown  by,  and  appear  upon,  the  survey  of  said  township,  approved  Septem- 
ber 2,  1884,  amounting  to  1,626T%^  acres;  and  to  select  also,  under  said  grant,  lands  to 
the  amount  of  993^  acres,  the  said  two  selections  to  be  in  lieu  of  said  first  mentioned 
selection. 

Resolved  further,  That  the  Land  Agent  of  said  University  be  and  he  is  hereby  authorized, 
on  behalf  of  said  Board  of  Regents,  to  procure  the  cancellation,  by  the  General  Land 
Office,  of  the  first  mentioned  selection,  and  clear  list,  upon  the  condition  above  mentioned. 
And  the  Land  Agent  of  the  University  is  hereby  instructed  to  apply  for  an  amendatory 
selection  of  1,626^,  being  the  tracts  to  which  the  University  is  entitled,  according  to  the 
plot  of  1884,  as  set  forth  in  the  Commissioner's  letter  to  the  Register  and  Receiver,  Los 
Angeles  District,  California,  dated  June  26,  1885. 

On  motion,  the  above  resolutions  were  adopted. 

[COPY.] 

D.  K. 

1sai(  91,718  H.  H. 

84  \25,447  N.  O.  C. 

DEPARTMENT  OF  THE  INTERIOR,  GENERAL  LAND  OEFICE,  ) 
WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  June  26,  1885.     j 

Register  and  Receiver,  Los  Angeles,  California: 

GENTLEMEN:  The  following  tracts  in  Tp.  9  S.,  of  R.  7  W.,  San.  Ber.  Mer.,  are  described  in 
clear  list  2,  approved  June  17,  1873,  of  lands  selected  under  the  Agricultural  College  Grant: 

Fr'l  W.  \  Sec.  2  . .  .  273.12  acres 

All  of  Sec.  3.. 640.00  acres 

S.  *  of  N.  E.  J,  and  Fr'l  S.tSec.4... 347.47  acres 

S.  E.  iof  N.  E.  i,  and  Fr'l  S.  i  Sec.  9 144.10  acres 

All  of  Sec.  10... .". 640.00  acres 

Fr'l  W.  iof  Sec.  11,  and  Lots  1  and  2,  Sec.  14. 144.09  acres 

Lots  1,  2,  3,  4,  6,  7,  and  8,  N.  £  of  N.  E.  J,  S.  W.  i  of  N.  E.  i,  N.  W.  £  of  S.  E.  i, 

and  N.  E.  I  of  N.  W.  i,  Sec.  15,  and  Lot  2,  Sec.  22 ..  431.60  acres. 

Total... 2,620.38  acres. 


9 

The  selections  were  made  according  to  the  plat  approved  January  20,  1870.  The  east- 
ern line  of  the  township,  as  platted  originally  by  the  plat  mentioned',  would  run  through 
a  private  grant,  and  the  western  and  southern  lines  would  fall  in  the  Pacific  Ocean.  The 
township  was  platted  as  containing  more  land  than  it  actually  contained.  The  State  hav- 
ing selected  tracts  along  the  boundaries  of  the  township,  she  was  debited  with  a  greater 
quantity  of  land,  under  the  grant,  than  was  obtained. 

A  plat  of  a  new  survey  of  the  township  has  been  received  and  accepted,  approved  Sep- 
tember 2,  1884.  By  this'  plat  the  following  tracts  are  covered  by  the  selections : 

Lots  1,  2,  3,  4,  and  5,  of  Sec.  2 123.00  acres. 

All  of  Sec.  3 622.40  acres. 

N.  K.  i,  and  X.  E.  £  of  S.  E.  J,  and  Lots  6,  7,  8,  and  9,  Sec.  4.. 300.25  acres. 

Lots  1  to  15,  inclusive,  Sec.  10 489.48  acres. 

Lotl,  Sec.  11 9.48  acres. 

Lots  1,  2,3,  and  4,  Sec.  15 82.00  acres. 


Total .- 1,626.61  acres. 

The  State  desires  to  be  credited  with  the  difference  in  the  totals  above  given,  to  wit, 
"993.77  acres. 

With  letter  dated  at  Berkeley,  California,  September  3, 1884,  J.  Ham.  Harris,  Land  Agent 
of  the  University  of  the  State,' forwarded  a  deed  of  relinquishment  executed  by  the  Gov- 
ernor under  Act  of  the  Legislature  of  the  State,  approved  March  13,  1883,  reconveying  to 
the  United  States  all  the  land,  or  what  was  platted  as  land,  outside  of  the  new'survey 
^nd  described  in  said  clear  list  of  selections,  on  condition  that  the  State  be  credited  for  the 
quantity  last  above  stated. 

Should  the  State,  by  an  amendatory  list  of  the  current  series  of  numbers,  select  the 
quantity  of  1,626.61  acres — the  tracts  to  which  it  is  entitled  according  to  the  plat  of  1884, 
^s  above  set  forth — the  matter  will  receive  due  attention. 

Inform  the  proper  State  authority  of  the  contents  hereof,  a  copy  of  which  will  be  fur- 
nished Mr.  Harris. 

Very  respectfully, 

WM.  A.  J.  SPARKS,  Commissioner. 

Under  the  instructions  of  the  Board  of  Regents,  at  their  meeting  of  August 
14,  1885  (See  Minutes,  vol.  6,  p.  45),  the  Land  Agent  of  the  University 
forwarded  to  the  Register  and  Receiver,  Los  Angeles  District,  under  date 
of  August  24,  1885,  an  amendatory  application,  in  accordance  with  the 
Commissioner's  letter  of  June  26,  1885,  amounting  to  1,626^^  acres. 

At  a  meeting  of  the  Board,  April  8,  1886,  the  Finance  Committee  sub- 
mitted the  following  statement  from  the  Land  Agent,  relative  to  the  indebt- 
edness of  the  Forster  estate,  without  recommendation: 

Estate  of  John  and  Francisco  Forster,  in  account  with  the  Regents  of  the  University  of 
California — Dr. : 

To  2,720  acres  applied  for  as  per  their  contract,  less  993^  acres  to  correct  error 

of  original  survev— 1,726^^  acres  at  $5  per  acre $8,631  15 

To  interest  from  ^f ay  1,  1872,  to  April  1,  1886 .    9,609  32 

$18,240  47 

•Credit— By  principal  paid $2,720  00 

By  interest  paid ...    6,22400 

8,944  00 


Balance  unpaid  to  April  1,1886 $9,220  47 

No  payments  of  interest  have  been  made  since  the  year  1877,  thus  the  applicants  have 
forfeited  all  claim  under  their  contracts.  Some  two  years  since  an  effort  was  made  to 
•obtain  a  settlement  from  the  heirs  of  the  Forster  estate,  but  without  success,  they  claim- 
ing that  the  contract  was  not  binding  upon  the  estate,  and,  also,  that  the  demand  was 
excessive. 

[Signed:]  J.  HAM.  HARRIS,  Land  Agent. 

Referred  by  the  Board  to  Finance  Committee,  with  power  to  settle. 

At  a  meeting  of  the  Board  of  Regents,  April  8,  1886,  the  Secretary  pre- 
sented the  following  petition: 


10 

To  the  Hon.  the  Board  of  Regents  of  the  University  of  California: 

GENTLEMEN:  Your  petitioner  would  respectfully  set  forth  the  following  facts:  January 
20,  1870,  the  plat  of  survey  of  T.  9  S.,  R.  7  W.,  S.  B.  M.,  was  approved  by  the  U.  S.  Surveyor- 
General  for  California. 

October  31,  1873,  D.  B.  Kurtz  made  application  to  the  State  Surveyor-General  to  pur- 
chase the  following  tracts  as  indemnity  or  lieu  land,  to  wit : 

E.  $  of  N.W.  J,  K  W.  i  of  N.W.  i  of  Sec.  4. 

Lots  1,  2,  and  3,  and  N.  4  of  N.E.  i  of  Sec.  9. 

Lot  5  of  Sec.  15,  T.  9  S.,  R.  7  W.,  S.  B.  M. 

November  1,  1873,  the  State  filed  in  the  Land  Office  at  Los  Angeles  its  application  for 
said  land. 

March  3,  1874,  the  State  issued  a  certificate  of  purchase  to  D.  B.  Kurtz  for  same. 

The  following  tracts  were  listed  to  the  State  in  List  2,  selected  under  the  Agricultural 
College  Grant. 

Fractional  W.  I  of  Section  2. 

S  4  of  N.  E.  |  and  fractional  S.  i  of  Section  4. 

Aft  of  Section  3. 

S.  E.  i  of  N.  E.  £  and  fractional  S.  4  of  Section  9. 

All  of  Section  10. 

Fractional  W.  £  of  Section  11. 

Lots  1  and  2  ofSection  14. 

All  (except  Lot  5)  of  Section  15. 

Lot  2  of  Section  22. 

Township  9  S.,  R.  7  W.,  S.  B.  M.,  containing  2,620.38  acres. 

September  2,  1884,  a  new  plat  of  survey  of  this  township  was  approved,  the  old  one 
becoming  absolete. 

The  new  plat  made  an  entire  change  in  the  township,  involving  a  loss  of  1,873.14  acres, 
and  materially  changing  the  description  of  the  land  remaining. 

By  the  new'plat  there  is  a  conflict  between  the  agricultural  and  the  indemnity  grants. 

By  a  mutual  concession  this  conflict  may  be  avoided. 

The  land  selected  by  the  State  as  indemnity  land,  when  described  by  legal  subdivisions 
as  per  new  plat  of  survey,  would  call  for  lots  "3,  4,  5,  and  6,  of  Section  4,  Lot  1  of  Section  5, 
Lot  1  of  Section  9,  Lots  3,  4,  5,  and  12  of  Section  10,  Lots  1  and  2  of  Section  15. 

The  above  shows  a  conflict  as  to  Lots  3,  4,  5,  and  12  of  Section  10,  and  Lots  1  and  2  of 
Section  15. 

The  claimant  under  the  indemnity  selection  is  ready  to  relinquish  claim  to  Lots  3  and 
12  of  Section  10,  and  Lots  1  and  2  of  Section  15,  containing  94.45  acres,  and  now  respect- 
fully asks  that  the  Land  Agent  of  the  University  be  authorized  to  relinquish  claim  to 
Lots  4  and  5  of  Section  10,  containing  69.42  acres. 
Respectfully, 

THEO.  WAGNER, 

Attorney  for  claimants,  under  D.  B.  KURTZ. 
Referred  to  Land  Committee. 

At  the  meeting  of  the  Board  of  Regents,  May  25,  1886,  Regent  Mayre 
presented  the  following  report  from  the  Finance  Committee: 

"  In  the  matter  of  the  claim  against  the  Forster  heirs  we  recommend  the 
adoption  of  the  following  minute: 

"  That  the  University  will  carry  out  as  far  as  possible  its  contract  for  sale 
of  lands  to  the  Forsters;  that  a  patent  will  be  issued  to  the  Forster  heirs 
for  all  the  land  that  can  be  conveyed  under  the  Forster  locations,  for  the 
sum  of  $4,373  90,  that  being  the  amount  due  the  University  at  the  lowest 
acceptable  estimate,  on  the  fifteenth  day  of  May,  1886 — interest  to  be 
added,  up  to  the  date  of  payment."  On  motion,  concurred  in. 

At  the  meeting  of  the  Board  of  Regents,  June  29,  1886,  the  following 
report  from  the  Land  Committee  was  presented: 

"  In  the  matter  of  the  petition  of  Theo.  Wagner,  attorney  for  claimants 
under  D.  B.  Kurtz,  requesting  that  the  Land  Agent  of  the  University  be 
authorized  to  relinquish  claims  to  lots  4  and  5  of  Section  10,  Tp.  9.  S.,  R. 
7  W.,  S.  B.  M.,  amounting  to  69^%  acres,  upon  the  relinquishment  of 
said  Kurtz  to  the  University  of  indemnity  selections  to  lots  3  and  12  of 
Section  10,  and  lots  1  and  two  of  Section  15,  Tp.  9  S.,  R.  7  W.,  S.,  B.  M., 
containing  99T\50  acres — we  recommend  that  no  action  be  taken  until  infor- 
mation be  received  from  the  General  Land  Office  at  Washington,  in  rela- 
tion thereto."  Concurred  in. 


11 

The  Secretary  submitted  a  letter  from  Theo.  Wagner,  attorney  for  Fors- 
ter  heirs  and  D.  B.  Kurtz,  of  date  June  17,  1886.  Referred  to  Land  Com- 
mittee. 

The  following  is  a  copy  of  said  letter: 

MARTINEZ,  CALIFORNIA,  June  17, 1886. 
G.  H.  Harris,  Esq.,  Land  Agent  State  University  of  California: 

DEAR  SIR:  I  have  been  at  your  office  at  the  University  on  four  different  occasions  to 
see  you,  but  without  finding  vou.  1  have  therefore  concluded  to  write  you  in  relation  to 
the  matter  about  which  1  called  to  see  you. 

By  examining  your  records  you  will  find  that  the  University  sold  to  the  Forsters  in  the 
aggregate  2,720  acres. 

By  examining  the  map  of  the  township  as  then  supposed  to  be  surveyed,  you  will  also 
find  that  it  was  then  supposed  to  contain  3,107^%  acres. 

By  subtracting  the  number  of  acres  selected  in  said  township  by  the  University  from 
the  total  number  of  acres  in  said  township,  you  will  find  that  there  were  387^  acres 
which  the  University  did  not  select. 

Of  those  387T375%  acres  which  the  University  did  not  select,  320  acres  were  applied  for  by 
the  State  of  California  as  lieu  land  selections,  and  were  sold  by  the  State  to  D.  B.  Kurtz. 

The  application  for  a  resurvey  of  the  township  was  granted  upon  the  supposition  that 
all  the  parties  in  interest  asked  for  it  and  acquiesced  in  it,  as  otherwise  the  General  Land 
Office  had  no  power  or  jurisdiction  over  the  matter. 

In  either  event,  however,  neither  party  in  interest  would  or  could  be  allowed  under  this 
resurvey  to  obtain  any  advantage  over  the  other,  and  it  is  of  the  greatest  importance 
to  all  parties  that  the  parties  in  interest  should  settle  among  themselves  in  an  amicable 
way,  how  the  lesser  quantity  of  land  found  should  be  distributed  among  them,  for  the 
reason  that  any  attempt  of  one  to  obtain  what  is  claimed  by  the  other,  might  result  in 
setting  aside  the  new  survey  and  reinstating  the  old  survey,  as  the  General  Land  Office 
would  very  likely  not  care  to  settle  such  a  dispute ;  or,  if  that  was  not  done,  the  General 
Land  Office  would  very  probably  say:  The  land  in  that  township  has  all  been  disposed 
of  by  the  Government,  and  the  Government  has  therefore  no  further  interest  in  the  mat- 
ter, and  that  it  declines  to  settle  the  controversy  between  Mr.  Kurtz  and  the  Universitv; 
and  it  wrould  also  very  likely  refuse  to  take  any  further  action  in  the  matter,  but  would 
refer  us  to  the  Courts  to  settle  our  conflicting  claims  first,  so  as  to  let  a  Court  determine 
what  belongs  to  the  University  and  what  to  Mr.  Kurtz.  This  is  not  a  case  of  an  applica- 
tion for  public  lands  in  the  first  instance,  but  it  is  a  case  in  which  the  Government  has 
actually  parted  with  its  title  and  where  rights  have  become  vested. 

A  Court  of  equity  would  most  assuredly  rule  that  both  parties  can  only  take  pro  rata  of 
the  land  actually  in  existence. 

By  persisting  upon  your  application,  as  made  under  the  new  survey,  you  may  therefore 
force  the  General  Land  Office  to  adhere  to  the  old  survey,  and  that  certainly  is  a  result 
which  the  University  does  not  wish  to  bring  about,  for  the  reason  that  it  would  result  in 
charging  to  the  University  the  full  2,720  acres,  while,  if  it  came  to  a  legal  contest,  the  Uni- 
versity could  recover  for  no  more  than  is  actually  in  existence  from  the  Forsters. 

When  the  General  Land  Office  advised  you  to  adjust  your  selections  to  the  present  sur- 
vey, you  ought  to  have  considered  that  as  an  equitable  privilege  extended  to  vou  bv  the 
General  Land  Office,  and  not  as  a  legal  right;  and  that  request  of  the  General  Land  Office 
did  not  authorize  you  or  the  University  to  take  anything  in  that  township  that  you  had 
not  taken  by  your  former  selections,  consequently  your  action  in  applying  for  all  the  land 
in  that  township,  according  to  the  new  survey,  was  unauthorized,  and  to  the  extent  that 
it  included  lands  in  the  possession  of  Mr.  Kurtz,  it  was  absolutely  null  and  void  so  far  as 
Mr.  Kurtz  is  concerned. 

It  will  not  do  to  say  in  this  case,  that  the  General  Land  Office  need  not  approve  the 
selections  that  are  in 'conflict  with  Mr.  Kurtz's  selections,  for  it  will  readily  be  seen  that 
if  Mr.  Kurtz  claims  certain  lands  under  State  lieu  selections,  and  the  University  also  claims 
those  lands  under  its  grant,  the  duty  is  imposed  upon  the  General  Land  Office  of  decid- 
ing between  these  conflicting  claims,  which,  of  course,  precipitates  a  contest  which,  accord- 
ing to  the  rules  of  the  department,  can  only  be  disposed  of  by  means  of  a  proper  hearing, 
which  will  involve  expense,  and,  in  the  present  state  of  business  in  the  General  Land 
Office,  and  under  the  practice  prevailing  in  such  contests,  would  consume  years  of  time 
before  being  finally  settled,  and  then  it  might  be  settled,  as  heretofore  pointed  out,  in  a 
manner  not  agreeable  to  either  party. 

It  will  also  be  well,  in  such  a  contest,  to  consider  the  question  whether  the  contest  would 
not  bring  up  and  necessarily  raise  all  questions  regarding  the  power  of  the  honorable 
Commissioner  to  order  resurvey,  etc. 

So  long  as  all  parties  in  interest  are  satisfied,  no  stranger  in  interest  can  complain  or  be 
heard,  but  if  the  parties  in  interest  get  to  quarreling 'among  themselves,  and  bring  their 
matters  before  the  General  Land  Office,  it  necessarily  brings  up  all  the  questions  now  res 
adjudicata  anew.  I  do  not  think  that  it  would  be  wise  to  do  this,  or  that  the  honorable 
Board  of  Regents  would  authorize  it  if  they  knew. 

Your  action  in  attempting  to  select  the  whole  of  the  township  was  therefore  ill  advised 
and  hasty,  and  if  not  recalled  will  result  in  indefinitely  postponing  a  settlement  of  this 
vexed  question,  and  I  therefore  respectfully  request  that  you  recall  your  selections  under 


12 


the  present  survey,  and  that  you  adjust  your  former  selections  under  the  old  pretended 
survey  to  the  new  official  survey,  by  selecting  the  following  lands,  viz.: 


No.  of 
Section. 

Acres. 

lOOths. 

Lot  No.  1          .  - 

5 

3 

12 

Lots  1,  2,  6  7,  8,  9, 

and  S.  i  of  N.E.  £  and  N.E.  |  of  S.E.  £     . 

4 

300 

25 

The  whole  of 

3 

622 

40 

Lots  1234  and 

5  of 

2 

123 

00 

Lots  123678 

9  10  11  12  13  14  and  15  of 

10 

4^0 

86 

Lot  1  of     

11 

9 

48 

Lots  1,  2,  3,  and  4 

of 

15 

82 

00 

Totals 

1,561 

11 

Thus  leaving  for  Mr.  Kurtz  to  select  in  satisfaction  of  his  three  hundred  and  twenty 
acres  location  of  lieu  lands: 


No.  of 
Section. 

Acres. 

lOOths. 

Lots  3  4  and  5  of 

4 

106 

30 

Lots  1  of  

9 

24 

00 

Lots  4  and  5  of         -         _       -       -  

10 

69 

42 

Totals 

199 

82 

This  as  nearly  in  the  proportion  which  the  amount  of  land  actually  in  existence  bears 
to  the  former  supposed  area  as  it  is  possible  to  select  it  according  to  the  Government  sub- 
divisions, and  according  to  the  actual  locations  formerly  made  upon  the  ground. 

In  the  event  that  you  decline  to  recall  your  reselections,  I  respectfully  request  a  descrip- 
tion of  the  land  included  in  location  No.  411,  made  by  John  Forster,  which  was  approved 
May  1,  1872,  and  which  was  for  2,280  acres,  and  location  No.  412,  made  by  Francisco  Foo- 
ter,* also  approved  May  1,  1872,  which  was  for  440  acres. 

I  also  respectfully  request  information  under  and  by  what  authority  you  made  the 
reselection  of  all  the  land  in  said  township,  according  to  the  present  survey,  whether  upon 
your  own  motion  and  responsibility,  or  by  direction  of  the  Land  Committee,  or  the  hon- 
orable Board  of  Regents. 

I  desire  this  information  to  use  in  laying  the  whole  matter  before  the  honorable  Board 
of  Regents. 

I  intend  to  have  the  same  printed,  with  the  maps  attached,  and  to  mail  to  each  Regent 
a  copy,  so  that  the  whole  matter  shall  be  fully  understood  when  they  meet. 

I  am  tired  of  being  sent  from  pillar  to  post,  and  back  again,  in  this  matter,  and  I  desire 
to  bring  it  to  a  conclusion  in  some  way;  and  if  I  cannot  do  it  otherwise,  I  must  do  it  by 
legal  process. 

In  conclusion,  I  would  suggest  that  if  I  have  convinced  you  that  the  attempted  selection 
of  all  the  land  in  that  township  under  the  new  survey,  was  a  mistake,  it  would  only 
increase  our  respect,  and  that  of  all  right-minded  men,  for  those  responsible  for  the  mis- 
take, if  they  frankly  admit  it,  and  correct  it  as  soon  and  as  far  as  possible. 

As  your  reselections  have  not  yet  been  approved,  you  can  simply  file  your  reselections, 
as  herein  indicated,  stating  therein,  that  it  is  in  lieu"  of  the  former  reselections  of  such  a 
date,  which  you  desire  to  recall,  and  request  the  return  of  such  former  reselection. 

An  early  reply  would  greatly  oblige, 
Your  truly, 

THEO.  WAGNER, 
Attorney  for  Forster  heirs  and  D.  B.  Kurtz. 

NOTE.— The  statement  that  the  University  had  selected  all  the  land  in  said  township 
according  to  new  survey  is  a  mistake,  but  was  based  upon  a  verbal  statement  by  G.  H. 
Harris,  the  Land  Agent  of  the  University,  to  me;  and  it  is  also  evident  that  the  calcula- 
tion by  which  the  sum  of  $4,373  90  is  claimed  to  be  due,  is  based  upon  the  assumption 
that  the  University  takes  all  the  land  in  the  township  under  the  new  survey. 

THEO.  WAGNER. 

MEM. — The  Land  Agent  denies  making  the  above  statement.  He  did 
not  know  the  area  of  the  township — only  the  area  to  which  the  University 
was  entitled,  viz.:  1,626.61  acres. 


13 

At  a  meeting  of  the  Land  Committee  on  September  25,  1886,  present, 
Regents  Winans  and  Rhodes,  the  following  report  to  be  made  to  the  Board 
of  Regents  was  adopted : 

In  the  matter  of  the  petition  of  Theo.  Wagner,  attorney  for  Forster  heirs 
and  grantees  of  D.  B.  Kurtz,  dated  June  17,  1886,  addressed  to  the  Land 
Agent  of  the  University  and  referred  by  the  Board  June  29,  1886,  your 
committee  report  as  follows: 

Inasmuch  as  the  petition  of  Theo.  Wagner  is,  by  his  own  statement 
therein,  based  upon  legal  grounds,  it  becomes  apparent  that  the  rights  he 
claims  involve  legal  questions  only,  which  should  be  decided  by  the  Courts 
or  other  public  authorities,  and  not  by  this  Board. 

We  therefore  recommend  that  his  petition  be  denied.  In  further  support 
of  this  recommendation,  we  refer  to  the  decision  of  the  Department  of  the 
Interior,  General  Land  Office,  Washington,  D.  C.,  rendered  by  the  Com- 
missioner, dated  July  9,  1886,  a  copy  of  which  is  hereunto  annexed: 

DEPARTMENT  OF  THE  INTERIOR,  GENERAL  LAND  OFFICE,  ) 
WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  July  9, 1886.     J 
Register  and  Receiver,  Los  Angeles,  California: 

GENTLEMEN:  The  following  selections  of  tracts  in  Tp.  9  S.,  of  R.  7  W.,  San  Bernardino 
meridian,  made  March  20,  1872,  per  lists  7  and  8,  under  the  Agricultural  College  Grant, 
which  tracts  are  described  in  list  2,  approved  June  17,  1873,  are  hereby  canceled : 

Fractional  W.  \  Sec.  2  ..  .  273.12  acres. 

All  of  Sec.  3 640.00  acres. 

S.*of  N.  E.  i  and  Frl  8.  J  of  Sec.  4 347.47  acres. 

S.  E.  i  of  N.  E.  \  and  Fr'l  S.  \  of  Sec.  9 144.10  acres. 

All  of  Sec.  10... 1 640.00  acres. 

Fr'l  W.  \  of  Sec.  11,  and  Lots  1  and  2  of  Sec.  14 144.09  acres. 

Lots  1,  2,  3,  4,  6,  7,  and  8,  N.  \  of  N.  E.  i,  S.  W.  J  of  N.  E.  £,  N.  W.  J  of  S.  E.  J, 

and  N.  E.  J  of  N.  W.  i,  Sec.  15,  and  Lots  2,  Sec.  22 431.60  acres. 

Total .- 2,620.38  acres. 

This  action  is  taken  in  accordance  with  letter  to  you  of  June  26,  1885,  in  which  it  was 
set  forth  that  the  State,  by  reason  of  the  above  selection,  made  by  a  defective  plat,  was 
debited  with  993.77  acres  falling  in  a  private  grant  and  the  Pacific  Ocean ;  that  a  relin- 
quishment  by  the  Governor  had  been  made,  under  Act  of  the  Legislature,  in  order  that 
the  State  might  be  credited  with  the  latter  quantity,  and  that  should  an  amendatory  list 
be  filed,  properly  describing  the  tracts  which  the  State  is  entitled  to  under  the  selections, 
aggregating  1,626.61  acres,  the  matter  would  receive  attention.  The  amendatory  applica- 
tion by  the  State,  received  with  your  letter  of  August  26, 1885,  is  herewith  returned.  It  is 
in  due  form,  and  describes  correctly  the  land  to  which  the  State  is  entitled  by  the  plat  of 
new  survey,  approved  September  2,  1884,  and  you  will  allow  the  same.  Make  it  of  record 
in  the  usual  manner,  and  transmit  it  to  this  office. 

Note  the  cancellation  on  your  records,  and  inform  J.  Ham.  Harris,  Land  Agent  of  the 
University  of  the  State,  of  the  action  taken. 

Very  respectfully, 

S.  M.  STOCKSLAGER, 

Assistant  Commissioner. 

In  conclusion,  I  will  state  that  at  the  time  John  and  Francisco  Forster 
made  their  applications,  in  February,  1872,  to  H.  A.  Higley,  Land  Agent 
of  the  University,  the  University  did  not  undertake  to  sell  the  land  applied 
for.  The  Land  Agent  was  simply  acting  as  a  locating  agent,  and  was  gov- 
erned by  the  statement  of  said  Forsters,  that  said  tracts  contained  2,70013$r 
acres,  which  they  contracted  to  accept  for  2,720  acres.  They  also  made  affi- 
davits that  there  were  no  adverse  claims  to  said  land  to  prevent  the  selection 
under  the  agricultural  grant.  It  is  evident  that  before  the  said  Forsters 
filed  their  applications  they  or  their  attorney  had  examined  the  maps  and 
records  in  the  United  States  Land  Office,  or  they  could  not  have  described 
by  subdivisions  the  land  sought  for.  Hence  the  University  was  not  a  party 
to  the  errors  of  selection. 

Very  respectfully, 

J.  HAM.  HARRIS, 
Land  Agent  of  the  University  of  California. 


